Mr. Speaker, I do not know any more what the position is of those members opposite. They were against double-dips. Now I think they are in favour of double-dips.

They seem to think that not only should ordinary Canadian taxpayers subsidize these large multinational corporations that are using tax loopholes, but of course they also believe that Canadian taxpayers should subsidize the Liberal Party of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, killing interest deductibility was not the only big mistake the minister made in his budget. In his budget speech, the minister said that “the long, tiring, unproductive era of bickering between the provincial and federal governments is over”. That comedy lasted about 10 minutes, until Premier Williams and Premier MacDonald had a chance to listen to the speech.

Now that the minister has flip-flopped on interest deductibility, will he finally see the light and reverse his disastrous decision to kill the Atlantic accord?

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, our government and our Prime Minister are totally committed to the Atlantic accords and the provinces can continue with the Atlantic accords if they choose to do so.

However, I am reminded of the income trust issue. As the member opposite well knows, his reaction to that was to demonstrate that he has the fastest thumbs in the east.

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that on May 3 a Transport Canada employee was arrested by Peel Regional Police and charged with alleged fraud and being in possession of a prohibited weapon. The employee was suspended without pay.

This is an ongoing example of how as a government we are much more vigilant today in terms of our safety and security. We have done it with the passenger protect program that we put in place last week. We have done it also with the restricted access cards to enable employees who must go into those restricted areas to be properly identified.

Mr. Speaker, never mind the flip-flopping of the leader of the Bloc. The real whopper today is the Minister of Finance.

Do members know what he said on April 17? He said:

If everyone doesn't pay their fair share...individuals and families have to make up the difference because we have to pay for fundamental services one way or the other.

Today the minister bows under the pressure from Bay Street and the Liberals by handing them a billion dollar tax break. How do working families pay for this? Will it be with higher taxes, cuts in services or, like it was under the Liberals, both?

Mr. Speaker, the clarification must have it about right, because we have the Liberals supporting corporate Canada and the NDP supporting another point of view.

Our point of view is a balanced one, that is, we want to reduce taxes overall and continue to do that in Canada. In two budgets so far, we have reduced taxes over the course of three fiscal years by almost $38 billion, taxes of all kinds, including personal taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes and consumption taxes in Canada.

We want to continue to do that. For that, we must have a level playing field. Everybody must pay their fair share.

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives listen to the Liberals, it is the NDP that is standing up for working families and ordinary Canadians.

The minister says he does not have money to help people deal with drug costs. He says he does not have money for manufacturing and resource jobs. He cannot close the prosperity gap because there is supposedly no money.

Lo and behold, the government found a billion dollars for Bay Street at the snap of a finger. Why is the minister choosing Bay Street over Main Street? Why is he widening the prosperity gap in this country instead of closing it?

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite wants us to take on the corporations. She wants us to take on the corporations when they take a double deduction and claim an interest deduction in this country and an interest deduction somewhere else.

That is exactly what we are doing, because Canadian taxpayers, ordinary, hard-working Canadians, should not be indirectly subsidizing corporations in this country. I am sure the finance critic for the NDP will support this initiative by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Transport announced the imposition of a no fly list, which does nothing to protect air travellers.

How does the minister's preposterously named passenger protect program safeguard privacy rights and Canadian sovereignty if he is obliged to share such a list with homeland security and defence in the U.S., but not with Canadians on the list?

Will he now admit that his initiative does nothing to combat terrorism and that it is nothing more than a capitulation to American demands that he comply with their no fly list?

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my hon. colleague to read the regulation before casting aspersions. Basically, this regulation that has been put in place was put forward and of course did meet a number of conditions put forth by the groups the member is speaking of, and it did go through a consultation process.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is solely responsible for the names added to the no fly list, not Canadian security organizations. He can consult anyone at all, including his cronies, any far right ideologues or anyone he appointed to the transport commission.

What guarantees or mechanisms can he give us today to ensure that any Canadian added to this list by mistake or upon American recommendation can have his or her name removed and any damage to his or her reputation repaired?

Mr. Speaker, as I explained, the system we have established obviously comes as a result of extensive consultation with the security community. Of course, it is not something that we just pulled out of a hat. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the system in place allows everyone the right to challenge the legitimacy of their name being on the list. There is a mechanism they can use to do so and this means greater security for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister demonstrated that he was willing to roll over again instead of standing up to the U.S., this time on pesticide regulations.

The health minister claims that increasing the residue levels somehow represents the highest of standards when it comes to protecting the health of Canadians. Why has the government increased pesticide exposure for Canadians instead of insisting that the United States come up to our standards?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's government is committed to protecting the health of Canadians. We will continue to have among the highest standards in the world. Any changes that will be made in the future will be based on the best scientific evidence.